campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Same-sex marriage
The law in various parts of the world United States In the United States, gay marraige has been left up to the states themselves to determine. Only one state, Massachusetts, currently allows gay marriages. Vermont offers civil unions, and at least 14 other states outright ban any sort of gay union. United Kingdom Civil Partnerships Placeholder text, to be made more specific, describing the recently introduced institution of Civil Partnership which is open to two individuals of the same sex In favor of Gay Marriage Separation of Church and State Marriage is a civil union between two persons, the ceremony of which is presided over by a member of their religious institution. As this is a religious issue the state should have no say in who can or cannot enter into marriage. --Argash 10:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Equality The non discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation Against Gay Marriage Natural Order The intrinsically heterosexual nature of mammalian procreation Counterpoint Can someone please cite this correctly? Thanks From the American Psychological Association's "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality" (http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html): Is Sexual Orientation a Choice? No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. --Bob 11:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Religious Imperative The need or otherwise of aligning secular law with the moral code of a majority religion Counterpoint C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity discusses marriage, and his argument - which I agree with so am (poorly) reproducing here - is that there should be a distinction made between civil marriages and religious marriages. With high divorce rate as a primary indicator, marriages as implemented by the government today are, in fact, civil marriages. We do not - and can be argued never have - held people to the oath of "till death do us part". In this sense, the religious side is just for show. Lewis asks for a large distinction to be made between religious marriages, specifically Christian, and civil ones. He sees no reason that civil marriages are held up to a Christian standard, and by making this distinction we can not only more effectively separate church and state, but also clarify exactly our intentions when getting married. --Bubaflub 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Party Platforms United States Republicans Proposed Legislation Democrats Discussion Points General Discussion Why should the government be in the business of defining marriage at all? It seems to me that this should all be in the purview of contract law so that nobody ever has to be subject to having others of differing beliefs tell them whether or not they can call their particular relationship "marriage." Since it's probably not that likely that the government will ever start minding its own business about such things, I think it would be preferable to leave it to the states, because it's a lot easier to move from state to state than to leave the country. --Kg6cvv 23:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC) :The answer to your question is quite simply, "most people don't agree with you, and they never will." Most people do not want their marriages to be governed by contract law and most do want the government and other large institutions to subsidize families in some basic ways, like health insurance benefits, baseline "rights" so divorces don't end in destitution, etc. It doesn't matter how much "sense" your ideas make, it is just never going to happen that way. It will never be preferable to leave it to the states. What if we had left racial segregation to the states? As a nation we need more compassion and understanding.--66.229.43.175 00:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :Is there any choice other than to leave it to the state? Marriage by definition is a legal status granted by the state, so therefore it must have some specific legal definition. I think that a "separation of bedroom and state" might be helpful. There are symbols that bear respect. While 'compassion and understanding' are important, and nobody deserves discrimination and abuse, there are some ideas afoot as palatable as "2+2=3". Enjoying and appreciating all good neighbors as people is one thing; acquiescing to an idea I feel untenable is another. Likely, those on the other side would feel the same about some of my beliefs. Let us disagree agreeably. But what about those who believe that to allow gay marriage erodes a fundamental American value? How can the two viewpoints be reconciled? CitizenJohn 01:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :There's the rub. How do you balance the value of Privacy with the value of ... Um, what value prevents Gay Marriage? I know there's the Dogma of one of the major religions, but the Christian Bible, Jewish Torah and Islamic Koran were not used to write the Declaration of Independence. And the value of Bigotry, Prejudice and Fear of what is different have never seemed positive to me. Honestly, I just don't understand what prevents us from recognizing people as people and letting them live without fear of persecution from people who just hate without reason. Chadlupkes 02:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :: While people who embrace homosexuality may face levels of persecution it's not the government's job to force people to accept and approve of this lifestyle. I also hope you're not associating "the Christian Bible, Jewish Torah, and Islamic Koran" with "Bigotry, Prejudice, and fear of what is different". The only role the government should have in protecting homosexuality should be preventing hate crimes against these individuals. Every person, no matter the race, creed, political views, faith, or sexuality is entitled to protection by the government against those who hate. I know some people out there do not agree with the idea of gay people getting married, but why not? What harm can it do? - JM, July 5th 19:50 Pacific. -I agree with JM. Do people really have a right not to be offended? I'd like to note that this issue comes along before every midterm election. It's a fear mongering tool used (very effectively) by the Republicans. -MAssMedia :You know it works both ways right? I'd just like to say that gay marriage should be a non-issue. I frankly do not care if two people who love each other get married who are of the same sex. Even if it is "offensive to god" you have no say in their lives because we have freedom of religion here in America. You cannot force your religious beliefs on others. Another point is to ask yourself if gay marriage is allowed, is it really going to affect your life in a harmful way? What possible harm can come of it? People need to wise up and be more accepting of others. Gay marriage is not a problem and you should not care about what type of people get married. Sheesh. -I think this discussion should be in the "discussion" section should it not? Anyway, I often hear opponents to gay marriage complain that they think allowing gay marriage is the first step down a slippery slope. So probably polygamy comes next. After polygamy I guess it's a child molesting free for all. I don't see child molestation becoming popular, but I think the slippery slope issue needs to be analyzed and a good counter to that way of thinking needs to be developed. Discussion in favor of Gay Marriage Placeholder text - I think we should organize discussion along for and against lines Discussion against Gay Marriage Furthermore, we should organize similar opinions together so that they can be edited together. The current method of discussion is more akin to a bulletin board than a wiki Category:Civil rights